<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 02/03/2013 08:27 AM, Joe Campbell
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">I'm "trying to wish away what the Constitution says"?
Isn't this just another way of saying that you think the
Constitution says something different? Why would I wish the
Constitution said something different than it says? I'm very happy
with what it DOES say. And I've given a pretty good argument for
my interpretation of it. I haven't heard any argument from your
side, for your radical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
How is my interpretation of the Second Amendment in any way
"radical"? "Radical?" Really? "...the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed." How is a government ban on a
complete class of guns (based almost solely on how military they
look) not an infringement of my right to keep and bear arms?
Doesn't it stop me from buying an AR15, for example, not based on
market forces or recalls based on safety or popularity, but because
the government told me I can't own one? Doesn't that infringe on my
right to keep and bear arms, if only by restricting what I can keep
and bear? I don't see how this is "radical".<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<br>
And for Christ's sake PLEASE stop attributing to me the view that
I want to ban guns. I have not said I wanted to ban anything, not
even semiautomatics. In fact, I've ONLY been talking about the
Constitutional interpretation issue and the ONLY point I've
consistently made on this topic is that the 2nd Amendment DOES NOT
allow you the right to buy whatever gun you wish; rights can't
possibly have this kind of universal extension since no one has
the right to do wrong. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
When I mentioned the superficial differences between an AR15 and a
mini 14 that makes the latter not fall under the "assault weapon"
nomenclature, your suggestion was to ban mini 14's too. So, I don't
know how I ever got it into my head that you were for the banning of
assault weapons. Oh, and you haven't responded to my apparently
invisible response to your "no one has the right to do wrong" idea.
That was namely that if you have the right in the first place, then
it's up to the law to determine the bounds of it. You don't have
the right to libel me, but the fact that you libeled me can only be
determined after it has happened. Preemptively removing my right to
post to an Internet forum because someone somewhere libeled someone
is not anymore justified than banning a type of gun because someone
somewhere committed a massacre with one.<br>
<br>
How do you propose to stop people from doing wrong? Do you have an
agenda to ban every activity that could possibly lead to such an
outcome?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<br>
ALL that means is that we CAN and should TALK about banning
semi-automatics, or pretty much ANY gun, as I see it. But we are
going to have to muster up some pretty good reasons in support of
such a ban. Gun rights suggest that unless a VERY good reason can
be given, we should not ban guns, or types of guns. But it allows
for the banning of types of guns provided adequate reasons are
given. I've never said anything about banning this gun or that,
though admittedly I don't much care whether or not semiautomatics
are banned. I don't see any use for those guns by private
citizens. That doesn't mean I want to ban them.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is where I get the "wishing away the Constitution" bit from.
You don't give a damn about semiautomatics, so let's talk about
banning them. I don't give a damn about philosophers as a group, so
why not take away their right to a speedy trial? You have to look
to the Constitution first, to see what the government is even
allowed to do. Then you can take the conversation from there.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<br>
I don't have a dislike of guns -- in fact, I actually LIKE guns
very much (though this is recent) -- and the fact that you keep
trying to fit every liberal into the same hole makes it very
difficult to talk with you about this issue.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's great. I don't have a great like of guns, to me they are a
tool. They can be fun to target practice with, but I'm not
fanatical about them.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<br>
Getting back to my point and your misunderstanding of it, saying
that ALL rights CAN be curtailed is not the same as saying that
"you can curtail it however you want." Speech can be curtailed.
You cannot curtail speech however you want. In this way, it is
different from (say) smoking crack. We can curtail ALL instances
of smoking crack but not all instances of speech. There is no
right to smoke crack. That is what having a right does: it gives
you a kind of presumptive entitlement; it doesn't give you
universal entitlement. That is absurd. If we have no universal
entitlement to speech, then we have no universal entitlement to
anything. And I've already made the point about speech.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
It's too bad there's no document out there that we could refer to
that would tell us exactly and in what ways our rights can be
curtailed by the government. We could then refer to that document
when the subject of a specific right comes up.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<br>
You might wonder: How does your owning a gun interfere with my
rights? Well, it COULD do so in many ways. Consider that a great
many guns are stolen each year; a great many of those are used in
crimes. You could be as careful as you wish but no matter how
careful you are, some gun that you buy COULD be used to kill ME.
So in theory at least we already have a situation where one set of
rights (your right to own a gun) is being weighed against another
set of rights (my right to life). The situation is absurd since
the likelihood some gun that you own being used to kill me is
small. But all that means is as the likelihood of threat to life
(or harm to interests) rises, the more a consideration of these
kinds of issues matter when determining whether or not your right
can be curtailed.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
That's why we have laws that govern the misuse of firearms. You
don't get to inhibit my right to do something solely because I could
do something bad with that right if I chose. When you have a Right,
you have a Duty to exercise it responsibly. Consequences for not
doing so fill our law books. Banning something because it might be
used in a bad way is more akin to thought-crime. No one has done
anything bad yet, so why are they being punished for it?<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<br>
But this is NOT an argument for banning guns! This is an argument
that even though we have gun rights, we can ban guns just the
same. In other words, the NRA interpretation -- your
interpretation -- is a bad one, an absurd interpretation of the
2nd Amendment. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm not a member of the NRA, mainly because they flip out on this
stuff and do lots of harm, in my opinion. Still, I'd like you to
explain how a ban on a class of guns is not an infringement on my
right to keep and bear arms. The logic that since you can control
guns in some manner already that you should then be able to ban them
as well doesn't hold up. There are restrictions on speech already,
so should we be able ban classes of speech simply because we've
already allowed ourselves other ways in which we can restrict
speech? The existence of obscenity laws justifying the banning of
negative speech about the government? As I've said before, we have
a document already that lays all this out for us. The onus is on
those wanting to restrict a right further to provide some kind of
Constitutional basis for it.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<br>
But I take all rights seriously. We'd have to have a damn good
reason to ever ban any gun.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, I'm glad you're not for just banning them on a whim. <br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+fbP8x94niN7-V88vG_pqmORLF=QiU6m4oTWn6PQrWjj2AEag@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Paul
Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div><br>
Oh, I'm listening. I just think you're trying to wish
away what the Constitution says. What good is a Right if
you can curtail it however you want? MY Right to bear
arms should not be infringed because some other a-hole
with an AR15 and a couple of screws loose caused a
tragedy. If he had survived, and was convicted in a court
of law, then his freedom would have been taken away, if
not his life. I still have that right to arm myself that
was very clearly laid out in the text of the Bill of
Rights.<br>
<br>
I'm not saying that my right to bear arms should override
your right to walk around in public without getting shot
by me. I am saying that your dislike of guns and/or wish
that no one had them does not override my right to bear
arms. This seems very clear to me. We're talking about
where rights collide. But for rights to collide, you have
to have them in the first place. The First Amendment
analogy would be to take away your right to post freely on
the Internet because some a-hole on a forum somewhere
libeled me.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Paul</font></span>
<div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 02/02/2013 04:28 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div class="h5">
<blockquote type="cite">I've told you this before but
you don't seem to be listening: any right can be
violated for the right reason; there is NO right to do
X regardless; all rights have limitations given their
nature. You can't allow people the right to violate
the rights of others, for instance. Thus, when rights
bump up against each other, one of them has to give. <br>
<br>
And it says "the right of the people ... shall not be
violated" not "folks can own whatever kind of gun they
wish, and for whatever reason or purpose." Curtailing
my speech by prohibiting me from slanderous public
comments is not a violation of my rights since I never
had the right to harm your interests in the first
place. I can speak freely ... up to a point.
Essentially a right is something you can do so long as
it doesn't bump up against the rights and interests of
others. Because NO ONE has a right to do wrong. <br>
<br>
This point seems very clear. I've made it over and
over. If you could spot the flaw in the argument, I'd
be interested to know what it is. But you won't even
talk about. You just keep making the same false claim
about gun rights, over and over again.<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 2:40
PM, Paul Rumelhart <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div><br>
My idea doesn't match the current narrative
going around, eh?<br>
<br>
The Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment
is one, doesn't give us any rights. They are
already ours. All it does is limit what the
government can do with regards to those
rights. For example, for the 1st Amendment,
it's "Congress shall make no law...". For the
4th Amendment it's "The right of the people
... shall not be violated". In the case of
the 2nd Amendment, that limit is "the right of
the people ... shall not infringed". The well
regulated militia part is explanatory, a
reason why the "shall not infringe" part was
put there.<br>
<br>
I'm having a hard time reconciling the word
"ban" with the words "the right of the people
... shall not be infringed". They appear to
be diametrically opposed to each other, to
me. But then I guess I don't drink the
Kool-aid.<span><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Paul</font></span>
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
On 02/02/2013 01:54 PM, Joe Campbell
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>You have a faulty understanding of
the notion of a constitutional right.</div>
<div><br>
On Feb 2, 2013, at 1:38 PM, Paul
Rumelhart <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div>On 02/02/2013 01:09 PM, Joe
Campbell wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>1/ ban those guns too maybe</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
If only there was some Constitutional
backing for that. If that still
matters, anymore.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2/ and the drones. <br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I wouldn't "ban" them, necessarily.
Better to use drones that put boots on
the ground. I'd simply suggest that
we stop using them as our President's
personal kill toy.<br>
<br>
Someday I'd like to hear this story
from the perspective of one of the
remote controllers of the drones. How
exactly does an average drone
assassination go down?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><br>
On Feb 2, 2013, at 10:55 AM, Paul
Rumelhart <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"
target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div><br>
You know, I could get behind
these attempts to portray
people who are against the
assault weapons ban as
sociopaths or schizophrenics,
if it weren't for the
following things:<br>
<br>
1. If the proponents of these
bans weren't so disingenuous
with their wording. "Assault
weapon" is a look-and-feel
definition, not a usage-based
one. A Ruger Mini 14 is just
as deadly in a spree shooting
as an AR15, but it's not
considered an "assault weapon"
because it doesn't look enough
like a movie prop. I've both
made this kind of comment on
this list before and have seen
it made here many times. I
haven't seen anyone answer
it. What is the use of
banning a weapon based on how
military it looks? Why ban
guns with barrel shrouds? All
they do is keep you from
burning yourself on the
barrel. Or bayonet mounts?
Are we really worried about
the latest rash of gun
stabbings? My conclusion:
it's only useful politically.<br>
<br>
2. If they weren't so intent
to ride the "think of the
children" wave. If the deaths
of school children should be
driving our behaviors, then
how about we overhaul the
drone program? Lots of
children are dying every day
via drones, all OK'd by our
sitting President. I posted
an article about that a few
days ago, I think. So why is
the outrage over Newtown
driving the assault weapons
ban but there is no outrage
over drone-killings? The only
differences I can see are that
the Newtown angle has been in
the news non-stop while there
is very little reporting on
personally sanctioned
assassinations by our
President and that the
children killed by drones are
brown and not white.
"Foreign" and not "domestic",
if that makes you sleep
better. Also, every new
gun-related incident gets
center stage attention, as if
these kinds of tragedies
haven't been happening all the
time. Suddenly, a switch is
thrown and we're all outraged
about them.<br>
<br>
Now, I can get behind better
background checks. I'd like
to see more focus on how we
can keep guns out of the hands
of the mentally ill as well,
as long as we're careful about
people's rights so a random
Joe can't be suddenly labeled
"mentally ill" because he or
she owns an AR15 or for some
other trumped up reason.
Better databases covering gun
sales would also make sense,
though I can understand the
concerns that if they know
about your guns they can also
come take them away. More
training on gun handling and
safety would also not go
amiss.<br>
<br>
But this push to ban "assault
weapons" is blatant political
theater. The magazine size
restrictions are idiotic, as
well. It takes a second to
swap a magazine if you've
practiced it a few times.
Pick up the magazine, release
the current one and let it
drop, shove the new one home.
<br>
<br>
tl;dr version: gun control is
currently all about political
expediency when it should be
all about actual
effectiveness.<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 02/02/2013 09:26 AM, Moscow
Cares wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><mime-attachment.jpg><br>
<br>
<div>Seeya round town,
Moscow, because . . .</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"Moscow Cares"</div>
<div><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.MoscowCares.com"
target="_blank">http://www.MoscowCares.com</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>Tom Hansen</div>
<div>Moscow, Idaho</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"<span
style="font-size:medium">There's
room at the top they
are telling you still</span><span
style="font-size:medium"> </span></div>
<span
style="font-size:medium">But
first you must learn how
to smile as you kill </span><br
style="font-size:medium">
<span
style="font-size:medium">If
you want to be like the
folks on the hill."</span></div>
<div><font size="3"><span><br>
</span></font></div>
<div><font size="3"><span>-
John Lennon<br>
</span></font>
<div> </div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
On Feb 2, 2013, at 9:05 AM,
Art Deco <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com"
target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Understanding
why we need assault
rifles:<br>
<br>
<Tom Tomorrow Glib
Guns
TMW2013-01-30colorKOS.png><br
clear="all">
<div><br>
-- <br>
Art Deco (Wayne A.
Fox)<br>
<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br>
<br>
<img
moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>=======================================================</span><br>
<span> List services made
available by First Step
Internet,</span><br>
<span> serving the
communities of the
Palouse since 1994.</span><br>
<span> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a></span><br>
<span> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></span><br>
<span>=======================================================</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div><span>=======================================================</span><br>
<span> List services made
available by First Step
Internet,</span><br>
<span> serving the communities
of the Palouse since 1994.</span><br>
<span> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.fsr.net"
target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a></span><br>
<span> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com"
target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a></span><br>
<span>=======================================================</span></div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>